On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:08:04 +0800 Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.x...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2016 05:53 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:51:29AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > >> @@ -504,6 +521,77 @@ nvdimm_dsm_no_payload(uint32_t func_ret_status, > >> hwaddr dsm_mem_addr) > >> cpu_physical_memory_write(dsm_mem_addr, &out, sizeof(out)); > >> } > >> > >> +#define NVDIMM_DSM_RET_STATUS_SUCCESS 0 /* Success */ > >> +#define NVDIMM_DSM_RET_STATUS_UNSUPPORT 1 /* Not Supported */ > >> +#define NVDIMM_DSM_RET_STATUS_INVALID 3 /* Invalid Input > >> Parameters */ > > > > Not worth changing but please make each logical change a separate patch > > in the future. This patch is cluttered with NVDIMM_DSM_RET_STATUS_ > > constant renaming. It's easier to review, bisect, and backport when > > structured as separate patches. > > > > Yes, indeed. Thanks for your suggestion, will pay more attention. :P just do renaming first as separate patch and then hotplug patches on top > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
